Chua vs.

Cabangbang
G.R. No. L-23253 March 28, 1969 Facts: Pacita Chua worked in nightclubs as a hostess. She had sexual liaison with man after man without benefit of marriage. She cohabited with Sy Sia Lay by whom she had two children named Robert and Betty Chua Sy. After the birth of Betty, Pacita Chua and Sy Sia Lay separated. Pacita Chua met Victor Tan Villareal, she became the latter's mistress. Bartolome Cabangbang and his wife, a childless couple, acquired the custody of the child Betty who was then barely four months old. They have since brought her up as their own. They had her christened as Grace Cabangbang. There are testimonial conflicts on how the Cabangbang spouses acquired custody of the girl Betty (or Grace), Pacita Chua avers that while she and Villareal were still living together, the latter surreptitiously took the child away and gave her to the Cabangbangs, the Cabangbang spouses assert in rebuttal that Mrs. Cabangbang found the child, wrapped in a bundle, at the gate of their residence; that she reared her as her own and grew very fond of her. Pacita Chua demanded the surrender to her of the custody of the child. Failing to secure such custody, Pacita Chua filed a petition for habeas corpus in the RTC but it was dismissed. Issues: I. WON the lower court erred when it awarded the custody of petitioner's daughter Betty Chua Sy or Grace Cabangbang, in favor of respondents Mr. and Mrs. Bartolome Cabangbang. II. Held: I. No. The lower court did not err and the SC affirmed the lower court's decision, not on the grounds cited by it, but upon a ground which the court overlooked abandonment by the petitioner of her child. It was found out that the child was given to the Cabangbangs by Villareal with the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. The petitioner did not at all not ever report to the authorities the alleged disappearance of her daughter, and had not taken any step to see the child when she allegedly discovered that she was in the custody of the Cabangbangs. Art. 332 of the Civil Code stated that abandonment is one of the grounds for depriving parents of parental authority over their children. The records show petitioner's settled purpose and intention to completely forego all parental responsibilities and forever relinquish all parental claims in respect to the child. II. No. Sec. 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides that "Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto." The petitioner has not proven that she is entitled to the rightful custody of Betty Chua Sy or Grace Cabangbang. Upon the contrary, by wantonly and completely shunting aside her legal and moral obligations toward her child, she must be deemed as having forfeited all legitimate legal and moral claim to her custody. The lower court acted correctly in dismissing her petition. WON the petitioner was illegally deprived of parental authority over her daughter.

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Carmila Claudette B. Bagay